David L. Corbett

The moving party, the City of Ottawa, sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs of $25,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court ordered an expedited appeal process due to an administrative error that had delayed the leave motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the unreported decision of J.R. McCarthy J. dated June 10, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The applicants, parents elected to a school council, brought an application for judicial review after the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) disbanded the council and ordered a new election due to a procedural irregularity.

The Divisional Court held that the TDSB lacked the statutory authority under the Education Act and O. Reg. 612/00 to disband a school council or review its elections.

The court granted a declaration that the TDSB's decision was made without jurisdiction, but declined to grant further remedies as the school year had already ended.

The appellant defendants appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the payment of settlement funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a defendant who pays settlement funds directly to a plaintiff in the face of a Solicitors Act charging order does so at its peril.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding party solicitors.

The 92-year-old appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying a disputed treatment plan.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and, citing exceptional circumstances, declined to remit the matter back to the Tribunal.

Instead, the court ordered the respondent to pay the disputed plan costs of $365,257.00 with immediate effect, noting that further delay would deny the appellant any benefit from the funds.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the classification of multi-unit rental residential properties under a realty tax incentive scheme.

The Board had interpreted the phrase 'a building permit' in O. Reg. 282/98 to mean any building permit issued for the development, allowing the respondents to benefit from the incentive despite the project being well underway.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in principle by failing to apply the modern approach to statutory interpretation.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh determination.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash the appellants' appeal of an interlocutory injunction order.

The underlying dispute involved competing oppression applications between 50/50 shareholders of a condominium project.

The Divisional Court found that the injunction order was interlocutory, not final, as it merely preserved the status quo pending the merits hearing.

The court reaffirmed that section 255 of the Business Corporations Act does not provide an appeal as of right for interlocutory orders.

Furthermore, because the standstill period had expired, the proposed appeal was moot.

The motion to quash was granted.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Penman J. dated May 16, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order made by the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $9,600 to the responding party.

The applicant, a mortgagee who sold a newly constructed home under power of sale, sought judicial review of Tarion's decision that it was a 'vendor' responsible for statutory warranties under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding Tarion's finding that a mortgagee selling under power of sale is a vendor, relying on established precedent.

The court also rejected arguments that the home was sold 'as-is', noting the Act prohibits contracting out of statutory warranties, and declined to consider new arguments not raised before Tarion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Koehnen J. dated March 19, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion in a brief endorsement and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior costs decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the unreported decision of Kumaranayake J. dated December 31, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant contractor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent subcontractor $852,416.50 for dewatering services and extra work on a municipal roadworks project.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay documents as business records and by inferring that the appellant had authorized the extra work by submitting the claims to the project owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the business records exception under the Evidence Act and made factual findings supported by the voluminous record.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of a terminated employee's separation allowance under a collective agreement.

The employer argued the arbitrator's findings on the start date, leaves of absence, and part-time pro-rating were unreasonable, and that the refusal to allow viva voce evidence breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The court also held that the employer was afforded procedural fairness, as the parties had agreed to proceed by written submissions and the proposed viva voce evidence would not have affected the outcome.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported decision of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of $2,500 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent municipality.